Pages

Friday, 30 June 2017

Leadership?

I got a new qualification back in May. I’m usually very
proud of getting new qualifications, including my PGCert in Academic Practice,
which most people treat as a burden. I didn’t tweet or brag about this one
though because it was a leadership qualification. I am now an accredited leader
to level 5 of the Institute of Learning and Management leadership framework. I
was ashamed of this qualification because of one of the key learning points
from the course for me – that when we think of “leaders” in English, we think
of, well ultimately:

A man. Shouting. Bullying people to do what he wants them to
do. And ultimately what he wants people to do is wrong.

I ended up doing the course because after I was promoted to
Senior Lecturer last year I ended up leading a couple of key pieces of work in
the University – leading a research programme, and leading an Athena SWAN
application. I realised in October 2016 that I was writing about how good the
Aurora leadership programme was for women and thought I need something like
that. Fortunately for me, a space had come up on the University’s ILM5 course
that was starting the following week. Luckily I could make all the sessions
over the six months. I realised quite how much I needed it when I was walking through Waverley Station the day after I'd said to HR I would do it and I burst into tears realising that I'd said "I can't do this anymore and need some help."

Because of my preconceptions about leadership, I went in
very skeptically and determined to have a feminist approach to my learning.
Chatting to colleagues, they suggested speaking to Frances Patterson who leads our
social work leadership courses. She put me onto shared leadership theory that
is heavily informed by feminism, and particularly the work of Joyce Fletcher on
post-heroic leadership.

A lot of contemporary leadership theory is based on
neuroscience, and I have to confess, I remain unconvinced of that. I’m just too
focused on understanding sociologically to accept psychological evidence for
human behaviour.

Engaging with the literature and realising that the way I
operate in organisations is good
leadership that is empirically demonstrated to lead to better performance
was really eye-opening and empowering. As I say, I think the word “leadership” in
English is too corrupted now. If we were into compounds nouns in English, like
the Germans, I’d say empoweringcaringsharingrolemodelperson would be a much
better word.

As part of the course I got some leadership coaching
sessions with Michele
Armstrong. I had my last session this morning and it gave me time to
reflect on my “leadership journey”. A big part of my leadership reflection was
getting to my core values – what makes me tick. These are helping the most
vulnerable in society and delivering equality. Another key value for me is
competence, and getting the job done and delivering change.

One key reflection, that I need to discuss with others, is
how I come across on this. Although these are my values, and I would say they are
progressive, I don’t immediately leap to activism, resistance and complaint to
go about delivering them. I like to go with the grain and use bureaucracy for
positive ends. Also, in a HE context, a lot of the things that are the focus of
ire – audit
and “administration”
– because they are “Neil Librul”, I actually think are not all bad. Following Clive
Barnett, I always look for the shades of grey in our friend Neil. He’s not
a totalising force. A lot of his tools – like audit, or performance measures –
can be used to progressive ends. I feel more comfortable in this space and
doing this work, and I think I need to talk about it a bit more as I'm worried I come across as a management stooge.

I keep my “resistance” quieter. For me, it means using the
inefficiency of bureaucracy to thwart its own ends – no one will notice if I
don’t fill in that spreadsheet I’ve been asked to complete. I’ll conveniently
forget to forward on requests to protect colleagues from something either I
could do, or I think is ill-advised and needs to be rethought. In working with
colleagues, I’ll focus on how exciting their ideas are and encourage them to
take them further, rather than bash them over the head with targets. If you
meet the targets it’s a bonus, but your job should be enjoyable, empowering and
intellectual stimulating. The chances are, if you are doing that sort of job
then your “customers” (students) will be happy and getting good learning (and a
Gold TEF award) and you’ll be doing the sort of research that will tick the REF
boxes.

I suppose a key frustration of mine though is that on these leadership and coaching courses I go on, everyone has been like me - already a very good leader, who just needs to space to reflect and some theory and practical ideas to hone their skills. That we have said to ourselves that we need to develop these skills, to me, says that we are good leaders. Those who think they are good leaders, who practice heroic leadership, aren't reflexive enough to attend such courses and yet they quite often are in leadership positions.

So, I am proud of being a leader, and my leadership skills.
I still don’t like the word leadership though.

1 comment:

Thank you Peter for inviting me to read your blog. Having 'walked alongside' you for part of this leadership development journey, I am delighted to see your thoughts in writing and happy that you are indeed acknowledging yourself for your achievements in this area. It was a joy and a pleasure to work with you. Bravo!!!

About Me

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling.
I blog about urban policy, cycling and other ephemera in a semi-professional manner. All posts represent personal opinions.